<div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>This email sets out a challenge to our work we will need to discuss at the CCWG and at our WP in the next week or so, and no doubt at Istanbul as well.</div><div><br></div><div>In our work so far we've identified several <b>powers </b>the community wants to exercise over ICANN the corporation, for example:</div><div><ul><li>Removing the Board of directors</li><li>Forcing reconsideration of the Budget or Strategic Plan</li><li>Forcing reconsideration of or blocking changes to the bylaws</li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>We've talked about a number of ways to achieve these powers - what I call <b>mechanisms</b> - that include:</div><div><ul><li>Using existing SO/AC processes</li><li>Using a specific new process under the bylaws (the Community Veto)</li><li>Chartering a permanent CCWG that has the powers at its disposal</li><li>Using California's delegates or memberships system to vest these powers in members/delegates</li><li>Establishing a Supervisory board along the European model</li></ul><div>(The "Community Council" I proposed in the Board removal template is a variety of supervisory board).</div><div><br></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>I think it would be valuable to work out some criteria to help establish our preferred mechanism - both in terms of the process/structure divide and within those too.</b></div><div><br></div><div>Here are some that come to mind - above and beyond the stress-tests, which will help, and above and beyond the matters set out in our definition and scope document:</div><div><ul><li>Legal effectiveness - how operable or entrenched would the community's new powers be? [We can't choose a mechanism that isn't effective, in my opinion.]<br><br></li><li>Decisionmaking quality - what impact will the mechanism's construction have on quality of decisionmaking? [This could be quite subjective but does need to be considered.]<br><br></li><li>Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to implement and to explain, internally and externally? [We have a consensus that simpler is preferable, so far as I can tell.]<br><br></li><li>Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and resource required from the community to make the mechanism work?<br><br></li><li>Accountability - how is the mechanism held accountable to the stakeholders whose power it is designed to enforce over ICANN?<br><br></li></ul><div><br></div></div><div>I am sure there are more, and welcome your additions to the list and discussion of the whole subject.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd like to build off that conversation by starting a table that sets out some of the aspects of each model based on these criteria and the others that come up, so as to pull all the key information into one place for debate in Istanbul. I'll start working on that tomorrow.</div><div><br></div><div>Looking forward to your thoughts!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>